Saturday, December 19, 2015

And for many men today, it’s an identity in particular need of cementing. In this May 2015 op-ed for The Los Angeles Times, sociologist Jennifer Carlson argues that men are clinging to guns as a way to address a broad range of social insecurities. Author of a book on the social practice of gun-carrying in America, Carlson found that gun owners often characterized their fathers’ generation as an era when men had important roles to play as providers and breadwinners.

I'm not sure of the definition of ".. a Masculinity Problem". It sounds to me like the definition of "Assault Rifle". It's left up to the people who care what either is, to define it.

Me? I've been shooting for fun and competition for sixty years now, and I still don't know what an Assault Rifle is. (I may or may not have carried one in Viet Nam .. if you consider an M70 Grenade Launcher an "Assault Rifle".)

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

I don't currently own a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle unless you include the nifty little gizmo which takes the 1911 lower and allows me to shoot .45acp through a carbine. So maybe that's an Assault Rifle .. except I always thought that the term "Rifle" included a rifle-caliber cartridge.

But what do I know?

And what do "they" know, the fine folks at "QUARTZ" (see the link at the top of the page).

Masculinity? I've always been a string-bean ... tall and skinny. Except now I've got this pot belly that suggests if I quit eating past and drinking cheap Canadian whisky, I could get back to my preferred weight of "under 220 pounds".

Oh, and nobody has bothered to define the term "Gun Problem", either.

It's like the old joke:"Drinking Problem? I drink, I get drunk, I fall down and go to sleep. No problem!"

Oh .. wait! I'm getting a vibe from Moms Demanding Attention.

I see ... that means that people with guns are shooting people who don't have guns.

Well, that's not a problem.
Except for the people who don't have guns.

I'm not going to suggest a solution for them; it's a free country, and you're all adults, so you can decide for yourself what you should do if you fear that someone would shoot you with a gun.

As for "masculinity problems" ... I don't know what to say about that, except that I assume that the category of "men" includes the presence of a penis.

No, I wouldn't know how to advise men on what to do with their guns. And I neither know, nor care, nor WANT to know what their "masculinity problem" might be.

In the absence of federal action to limit firearms-related violence, Seattle is one of a few local governments looking at creative solutions to do so.

Oh! So .. everything that follows this introductory phrase in the Seattle Times in intended to reinforce the original thesis? Follow along and see how well that works our.

But its latest effort to curb a public-health crisis that costs lives and money is threatened by a gun-rights coalition that includes the National Rifle Association.

Wow!
Faster than a Speeding bullet, the emphasis shifts from "limit firearms-related violence" to MONEY!
Maybe the emphasis should be pointed toward the people who keep getting shot?

On Friday, a King County Superior Court judge will consider that group’s request for an injunction against the city’s gun-and-ammunition sales tax, which is set to take effect in January.

Yes, the entire reason for taxing ammunition is NOT to "limit firearms-related violence". but to impose a new (arbitrary) sales tax in a state which already has 10% of it's consumer goods prices going to the State instead of the Producer of said goods.

The judge ought to see that this revenue serves a crucial purpose and does not stop gun enthusiasts from legally obtaining firearms.

No .. "The Judge" ought to see that this is a punitive tax which is specifically directed at the small percent of the populace who have chosen to take the Constitution at it word .. and will hereby be punished for their audacity:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"Infringed". Curious word. Does that include "Shall Not Be Taxed"? (As in, for instance, a Poll Tax which has been ruled unconstitutional.)

The revenue collected on sales of guns and ammunition would fund research through the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, in addition to prevention and education programs.
A groundbreaking 2014 study funded by the city showed that patients admitted to hospitals statewide for gunshot wounds are 30 times more likely to return with another firearm injury compared to people hospitalized for other reasons.

Oh, you get a lot of repeat business in the hospitals? Doesn't that make you wonder why the same people keep getting shot? And by the way ...

How about this?
the same folks keep getting shot? Maybe hospitals should quit treating return gang-bangers on the grounds that they're just asking for it!

"..we will fix your owiee this time, but don't come back; change your life style, Dude, because you're obviously asking for it!"

All of the above has absolutely no bearing on the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment; however, it does fill wasted space when the originators of this dumb-shit regulation are asked "why would you do this, and who would it benefit"? Nobody has a lot of sympathy for the gang-bangers who are responsible for the "gun violence", so why not direct your punitive actions toward them?

Oh, and by the way .. Gang Bangers don't frequent the same markets as do law-abiding citizens; your precious tax won't do a damn thing to the price they pay for stolen firearms.

Actually, one would think that a tax on firearms and/or ammunition would at least be directed toward a benefit for law-abiding firearms owners and ammunition buyers. But NO! There is no benefit here .. it's just another sleazy Poll Tax!

Absurdly, the NRA has fought since 1996 to ban federal funding for gun-violence research — as if arming ourselves with factual information is a bad thing.
The court should reject the arguments of parties asking for the injunction, including gun sellers, the NRA, the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

No, the court should direct their punitive actions toward the repeat felons who are driving the "shot while being a bad boy" statistics up ... not the honest citizens who don't engage in this kind of nefarious activity. The NRA doesn't represent gang-bangers; it represents law-abiding citizens.

You folks just don't seem to understand the difference between the two markets; one legal, the other based on activities which are already illegal.

I don't know about you, but I'm completely fed up with trying to balance gang activity with legal firearms ownership, and the state knows where the problem lies .. but won't "fix it".

Two percent of the population is responsible for 99 percent of the firearms violence, and what does the state do?

They penalize the law-abiding 98 percent of the population.

That's because the state knows that if they impose laws on the law-abiding, there's going to be some feedback .. but they can ignore that because legal gun-owners aren't going to shoot everybody in Tacoma. So it's safe for the legislators to be stupid.

No, this new legislative action won't reduce the amount of firearms violence, but if there's a law .. well, nobody expects the criminals to obey the law ... but it looks good on their resume. And besides, it won't really change anything, will it? So it's easy to pass a law; it's just not going to make a difference except to penalize law-abiding citizens. And you don't give a damn about them.

Why SHOULDN'T the NRA be opposed to gun violence research? You folks have the numbers, but you are ignoring them. The problem isn't with NRA members, but with career criminals, and you know it.

Any statistics you evolve will ignore the problem and focus on the people who have nothing to hide.

The PROBLEM isn't with the NRA folks, and it isn't even the fault of the gang-bangers.

The PROBLEM is that the state of Washington can't manage the law-ignoring people who generate all the gun-violence statistics, so they point the finger at the people who have guns .. but don't break the law.

Because they are the Big Target, and easy to hit.

And they don't shoot back.

You people make me sick.
No wonder I don't trust politicians ... .they don't trust ME!

But in actuality, this is a much more insidious attack on your Second Amendment Freedoms.

Scenario "A":You do nothing in protest, but meekly accept the new way to make it more difficult for you to buy ammunition.

The consequence is that the people who sell ammunition are legally required to perform background checks ... with no consequence other than the vendors have to spend more time to transact a sale. The best you can do is to either buy your ammunition online, reload your own ammunition as much as possible, or buy your ammunition in bulk to mitigate the impact on the merchants.

Scenario "B":In protest, you buy your ammunition in the smallest lots possible, to tax the resources.

The consequence is that the vendors quickly realize that the returns from a single sale are beyond their capabilities, and they discontinue sales of ammunition.

This overloads the process which was originally intended to vet people who are trying to buy firearms legally.

THAT scenario is what the authors of this bill are looking for.

"They" don't care if you are an honest citizen.

The intent of the bill is not to insure that terrorists cannot buy ammunition which they will use to kill Americans; the intent is to insure that NOBODY will be able to purchase ammunition for any purpose, legal or otherwise.

For those of you who might miss this doodle, here's the Ode To Joy, done as only the Japanese can (yes, it's true, with a chorus of 10,000!). Thanks, Ludwig. And thanks, Google. For a little while, you weren't evil.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

This Lame Duck President, who flaunts his "pen and a cell phone", will impose his personal agenda upon the law-abiding citizens of this country before the end of his term in office.

And it will be unconstitutional.

And because the American public are as sickened by continued armed assaults on the innocent, we will let him get away with it ... even though nothing he can say or do will stop public massacres.

We have watched him apologize before the American People for his inability to stop public assaults on us all, and I understand his frustration.

He is tired. He sincerely wants to stop the murders and the killings.

I don't blame him a bit. Yet.

My fear is that he will impose upon us, by Presidential Findings (call them 'decrees' or 'edicts'), some draconian laws fiat which will undermine our constitutional rights, but will have absolutely no effect on the continued depredations on the innocent by people who are consumed by their own evil intentions.

He is running out of time. And he is running out of options.
To preserve his place in history, President Obama MUST do "something".

His choices are limited ... he has no GOOD choices, and so he will choose the 'least bad' of the BAD choices available to him. In his desperation, he will do more harm than good on the honest people of America.

That's the problem with career politicians: they choose to pass laws to correct societal ills for which there are no good solutions. In the end, he will compromise our Civil Rights for the sake of an attempt to provide security to a nation at war (however 'undeclared' this war may be).

It will not have the effect he hopes; instead, it will finally tear this nation apart.

Well, we've weathered the storm of presidents who didn't share our particular political views before, and it appears that we will do so again. Like it or not ... DEMOCRACY! WHAT A CONCEPT!

God bless you, Mister President. I don't love your politics, but hey! This is America!
We'll maybe do better with the next President (although I doubt it; I haven't voted for a presidential candidate who actually won for quite a while).

[...] The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury.

Given that the Rabid AntiGunRights .... uh .... Congresscritter Nancy Pelosi refused to draw a line in the sand over this issue, it appears that even she acknowledges there is some truth to the original claim that the CDC has proven it can't be trusted to be neutral on the subject of Gun Control.

According to PEW, the public supports Republicans on guns by a margin of 43 percent to 37 percent.
Regarding the “terror threat,” the public sides with Republicans over Democrats 46 percent to 34 percent.
On the economy they side with Republicans by a margin of 42 percent to 37 percent. The public supports Republicans over Democrats by a slimmer margin on Immigration, 42 percent to 40 percent, but it is one more area where the American public looks to them instead of to Democrats.

Personally, I don't trust any of the lying scoundrels.

The article did, however, provide a nice blurb which essentially defines the difference between conservative and liberal ideology:

Republicans reacted to the San Bernardino terror attacks by focusing on border security and mental health, whereas Democrats reacted by wanting to expand gun control and introducing a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and related weapons.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Somehow I don’t think this is the most effective way to convince people of their righteous. It just makes people laugh.

Idaho Joe gets a lot of trash mail. I know he doesn't encourage it .. it just happens. But he's right; the clueless have a way of shooting themselves in the foot, and somehow it never seems to occur to them that other people will read their vitriol and judge them by it.

Either that, or they just don't care.

The very INTERESTING thing is the assumptions they make about firearms owners.

The Sunshine State is getting tough on crime ... by requiring those scary Concealed Weapons carriers to have their permits and ID ready for inspection.

A new proposal requiring concealed carry permit holders to carry their concealed weapons permits and state they're carrying a concealed weapon if approached by a first responder is being introduced in time for the 2016 legislative session.

Why? Well, because they are liable for a $1000 find if they don't.

But wait, there's more:

The legislation would revoke permit holders’ licenses if they violated the law a second time and failed to show proper identification for their permits.

This is much akin to the ill-fated "don't drive over 55" thingie we suffered through back when my kids were tots.

As we said way back then: "It's Not A Good Idea; It's Just The Law!"

Well, it's not a law yet; it's just a bill. A proposal. A Clay Pigeon at a Trap Range, just waiting for someone to shoot it down:

HB 935, sponsored by Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, D-Deerfield Beach, would make it mandatory for licensed concealed carry permit holders to keep their licenses on hand along with valid identification when possessing a firearm.

Show of hands: is anybody surprised that this "Feel-Good" bill has been sponsored by a Democrat?

Anybody?

There's really no justification for this bill. You go out jogging and you don't have your wallet with you but you DO have your pistol, that just shows you have your priorities right.

Word is there's not a lot of support for this one, but the thing that Politicians and Mangy Mutts have in common is that they have to lick a crotch now and then just to remind folks that they love you so much they'll do anything to please you.

Monday, December 14, 2015

The Washington Post offers a tidy little exposition on why it's impossible to implement "Common Sense Gun Laws" in the presence of a Gun Culture which gives Gun Grabbers what they want ..... and then laughs in their face!

In 1994, the federal assault weapons ban outlawed a host of firearms by make and model, including the popular Colt AR-15 and several “AK” style rifles. More broadly, the law also prohibited the manufacture and sale of any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable ammunition magazine (for quicker reloading), and had two or more external features such as a folding stock (to make a gun more compact), pistol grips and barrel shrouds (to help steady one’s aim) and a flash suppressor (to hide a shooter’s position).\

Let me see:Banned features of "EEVIL ASSAULT WEAPONS INCLUDE:

Detachable magazine

Folding Stock

Pistol Grips

Barrel Shrouds

Flash Suppressor

The NAME of the popular rifle

Remember this list; there will be a test at the end of the class!

The 1994 gun ban "outlawed" firearms which were never identified as a major player in gun violence, and defined those firearms by cosmetic features. None of which features made the firearms any more "deadly" than a Winchester Model 70 .. which was available in much more "deadly" calibers than .223.

So, okay ... anything that was on an AR15 and was not on a Model 70 was 'removed' from the AR15 by the manufacturers (except the ability to accept an external magazine).

But the gun-grabbers were shocked ... SHOCKED! ... that the deadly AR15 could be reconfigured to meet the standards which they had arbitrarily opposed ... and could be made "legal"!

How did the gun industry respond? With cosmetic fixes. Colt renamed the AR-15 the “Sporter,” stripped off its flash suppressor and bayonet lug and modified the magazine. Other manufacturers and importers took similar measures, renaming guns and making minor tweaks.
Everyone was pleased. For liberals, the law’s passage was a victory.

What got lost in the orgy of self-congratulation, though, was the purpose of the ban.

No, what got lost was:

The NAME of the popular rifle

Flash Suppressor

Bayonet lug

Folding Stock (an option)

Barrel Shrouds (not there in the first place)

Okay, so five out of the six "Bad Rifle" thingies had been changed.

Hard to change the 'magazine', since it was not a part of the original rifle; and any rifle which can accept a 5-round detachable magazine can probably accept a 30-round magazine (which is a "secondary market" item anyway).

Honestly, if these people are going to condemn a legal product based on cosmetic issues, how can they complain when manufacturers voluntarily comply by responding with cosmetic fixes?

[face palm]

I'm so embarrassed that the firearms industry couldn't read the minds of the gun grabbers.

The manufacturers couldn't intuit that it wasn't the 'secondary sexual characteristics' (akin to mammary glands, shapely legs and curvaceous hips on a female human) which outraged the priggish Gun Grabbers.

Could it be that the Gun Grabbers didn't truly object to the 'secondary sexual characteristics'

Don't tell me they objected to the entire concept of a semi-automatic, rifle-caliber firearm being available on the Free Market!

Act IV: Disarm the local cops. Either return them to revolvers and possibly shotguns, or transition to disarmed local policing. That precludes raiding the police station for weapons.
Serious incident? The State Police can render tactical aid if needed.
State police can be armed with appropriate levels of modern weaponry to end any threat to law and order. That's how it's done in Europe, a closely supervised select few have serious weaponry at-hand.

There's a technical term for a nation state where only the 'elite police' are "allowed" to have firearms.It's called "A Police State".